What Are You Listening To?

[JamesT]

14 hours ago, Dead1 said:

Iron Maiden - The Number of the Beast

Megadeth - Youthanasia

Pantera - Vulgar Display of Power

Man that's a great list there.  My favorite Maiden album and second favorite PanterA album.  Rock on!

[Stormblaast]

Slipknot - The Devil In I

 

[FatherAlabaster]

3 hours ago, JohanV said:

If you want to step out of what your band normally stands for then start another band!

Not to pick on you in particular, but I see this idea around a lot and I gotta disagree with the sentiment... why shouldn't a group explore whatever sounds they want? Why should they change their band name based on some consumer's idea of what's acceptable within some particular pigeonhole? It would be totally unpractical to have to come up with a new band name every time you wanted to try something different. Especially if it's a one-off thing or something they're presenting as the "other side of the band" or whatever. I can understand how it would be off-putting as a listener if you're expecting something else, but like Surge said they did advertise it pretty clearly.

[Thatguy]

1 hour ago, markm said:

Now I'm curious.  I like some ambient, but a little goes a long way and I tend to like it when it adds texture to a larger whole rather than pure ambient....

I listen to a good amount of ambient. By its nature I find a little goes a long way.😉

[GoatmasterGeneral]

No ambient for me here thanks.

 

Nuclear Asssault - Game Over, 1986, Live Suffer Die bitches

 

 

Lethal Aggression - Life Is Hard... But That's No Excuse!  New Jersey crossover 1988

 

 

Cerebral Fix - Life Sucks... And Then You Die!  1988

 

 

Carnivore - Retaliation, 1987

 

[MacabreEternal]

4 hours ago, JohanV said:

Super disappointed what BI did - there are plenty people that may buy the album blindly because of the past releases of this band. Obviously you could argue if that's smart but I guess we all did it. But then be exposed to this ambient shit is almost a scam. If you want to step out of what your band normally stands for then start another band! And then these crap metal zines that review the album (It's nothing to do with metal!) and still give high scores. Unbelievable.

Nobody has "exposed" you/anyone to anything let alone scammed anyone.  Anyone who chooses to listen to the album without doing their research - which is public knowledge - deserves to be super-disappointed. 

It is quite common for people who like, listen to, perform and write about metal music to listen to other music also and if you cannot cope with that then I would suggest it is you that has the problem, not Blood Incantation or the writers in whatever mags you are referring to.

 

[AlSymerz]

Helloween - S/T

[MarkhantonioYeatts]

METH RATS - Ultimate Culprit

VOIVOD - Synchro Anarchy

 

[SurgicalBrute]

Lycanthropic - Lycanthropic

 

[GoatmasterGeneral]

47 minutes ago, FatherAlabaster said:

Not to pick on you in particular, but I see this idea around a lot and I gotta disagree with the sentiment... why shouldn't a group explore whatever sounds they want? Why should they change their band name based on some consumer's idea of what's acceptable within some particular pigeonhole? It would be totally unpractical to have to come up with a new band name every time you wanted to try something different. Especially if it's a one-off thing or something they're presenting as the "other side if the band" or whatever. I can understand how it would be off-putting as a listener if you're expecting something else, but like Surge said they did advertise it pretty clearly.

I've always been on the change their name side of this debate. Not for every little style change that sounds the slightest bit different or a minor sub-genre shift like a thrash metal band going all groove metal in the 90's or something. But in this case we have a band that has spent several years writing and releasing records, touring and building their brand of progressive-tinged death metal who have now apparently put out an album of all ambient music. I'm not trying to pigeonhole them into any particular flavor of metal or rock music, they are free to do whatever they like without any limits and without asking my permission. I didn't happen to appreciate the progressive influences on their last album so I was happy to hop off the Blood Incantation train at that stop, and I wish them well. I will probably still watch their set at MDF in May, but I had no intention of checking out their new album, even if would have been another BI death metal album. I've got plenty of other music to listen to.  

Band names are brand names, and brand names are supposed to stand for something imho. Brand names exist to let consumers know what to expect when they open the box. If you're charging money for your music then it's a product like any other product and you will be seeking consumers for your product so you should stand behind it. Side projects in completely different genres than the main band or 180° changes of this magnitude should be released under a different name. Because what's the upside in pissing off a good portion of your fans and consumers?

There is much precedent for this, Drudkh comes to mind, a long standing black metal band from Ukraine. They have released 11 full length black metal albums under the Drudkh name but when they released their two straight death metal albums they did it under the Rattenfänger banner. I'm sure there are other good examples I just can't think of any off the top of my head. This is simply the right thing to do as far as I see it.

It's really just like any other company that puts a different name on their different types of products. Vaseline (petroleum jelly) Hellmann's (mayonaise) and Ben & Jerry's (ice cream) are all made by the same company but they put different brand names on the jars for a reason.

Unless you're a band whose brand is to be weird, experimental, off-kilter and avant-garde in which case your fans should already know to expect the unexpected. Or if you're purposely trying to play a little joke on your fans and confuse them then by all means make every album a completely different genre. Even as many people as that will piss off I'm sure there are still lots more people out there who would actually dig that approach.

But this branding issue should in no way discourage any musicians from exploring whatever sounds in whatever directions they want. I don't understand that facet of your argument. Side projects, one-offs and solo albums can be really cool, I'm all for them. It can be fun to see musicians you've only known for doing one thing now doing something completely different. Just do it under a different name, what's the big deal? How is this unpractical? Anyone creative enough to write and perform music oughta be able to come up with lots of names to slap on their different projects.

There are bands that evolve naturally and slowly over time from one thing to something else, or bands that make an abrupt change from one thing to another, but it's not a one-off, the change will be permanent, like Ulver. These bands can keep their same name. They'll lose fans along the way but they'll gain new ones as well and their brand will eventually come to be known as the new thing. But like when Morbid Angel put out a one-off out of left field like Illud Divinum Insanus, something like that should have been under a different brand name. I'm not even a fan of MA myself but I couldn't help notice that all they did was royally piss off their fans. Which is their right I suppose, they can do whatever they want to oviously, but my question is why would they want to? 

[AlSymerz]

Branding goes both ways. There is many parent companies that own own multiple brands, the mayo/vaseline example above. But there as also many brands that have multiple subsidiaries which keep the main name to ensure brand name recognition. A band using the same name they have been known as since their inception but releasing different music is not that much different to Hyundai known for making cars but also make excavators. Mack trucks safety footwear, obviously not made in the same factory as the trucks but the brand name associates one product with the other. Some brand names are sold under licence but many are used by a subsidiary company using the same brand name. Lego started out as wooden blocks, their change to plastic made the one of the biggest brand names in the world. I don't really have a stance on the Blood Incantation album and don't agree or disagree with anyone, but If a band is a brand and they work to make that brand stand out I see no reason for them not to use that brand to sell their product even when the product changes.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

Interesting way of looking at it Kuke. I have no skin in the game either as I didn't really like their last album so didn't care that they had a new one out. I'm not claiming that they're scamming or tricking anyone, especially in this day and age of streaming and try before you buy. Stupid to buy an album without sampling it first since you can. It's not like when we were youngsters picking albums just by whatever info we could glean about them from the covers. I just think if a death metal band puts out an ambient album or a thrash metal band puts out a record of country music songs or a punk band sings some opera they should stick a different name on the cover. Maybe I have a mild case of OCD or something.

 

TMA - Beach Party 2000, 1987, wish they had the whole album up on YT instead of all the individual tracks as a playlist. Got this first song stuck in my head today, and once I figured out what it was I had to play it. This was a random grab at the record store back in '87 that became a favorite of mine. 

 

Lime Spiders ‎– The Cave Comes Alive! 1987, another random record store grab back in the day. I had no idea they were Aussies until many years later.

 

[AlSymerz]

1 hour ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

Interesting way of looking at it Kuke. I have no skin in the game either as I didn't really like their last album so didn't care that they had a new one out. I'm not claiming that they're scamming or tricking anyone, especially in this day and age of streaming and try before you buy. Stupid to buy an album without sampling it first since you can. It's not like when we were youngsters picking albums just by whatever info we could glean about them from the covers. I just think if a death metal band puts out an ambient album or a thrash metal band puts out a record of country music songs or a punk band sings some opera they should stick a different name on the cover. Maybe I have a mild case of OCD or something.

Scamming or tricking is definitely an odd way to look at it, but we all have our ways I guess.

If you have OCD, we could rebrand it ADHD and you might get more sympathy, but as to whether you'd have to change your name I'm just not willing to enter that argument!

 

Edit: Oh yeah, NP Nervosa - Agony

[GoatmasterGeneral]

Well I do have ADHD but that's totally besides the point. I don't think I actually have OCD, I've known a few people who do over the years and they're nucking futs. Wouldn't wish it on anyone.

 

Gruntruck - Push, 1992, another one where the full album is not on Youtube, only the individual tracks. Haven't listened to this one in quite awhile. 

 

[markm]

NP: Blood Incantation/Timewave Zero-I'm on the second track and I like it. It's ambient music. Yeah, that's what it is. BFD. If you've spent much time listening to atmospheric heavy music and certainly atmospheric and experimental black, you've heard ambient music. So this is just an entire album of ambient. Okaaaaaay. aaaaand......????

As far as bands that moved from a heavier sound to ambient textures, well, uh, Ulver.

Speaking of ambient, inspired by Macabre E, I went back and listened to Blut Aus Nord/MoRT. Somehow, when I ripped my entire collection when I went digital back in 2012-13 I skipped MoRT. God forbid. My BAN collection includes: 

• The Works that Transforms God
• MoRT
• Memoria VetustaI
• Memoria Vetusta II-Dialog with the Stars
• 777-Sec(S)
• 777-The Desantification
• 777-Cosmophy
• Hallucinogen

If I think of all the bands that revolutionized my listening and tastes in the aughts, BAN was pivotal in terms of opening me to exciting experimentation and exposing me to weird ass metal. 

MoRT reminds me of all the great albums buried in my library I need to back and listen to more often. If TWtTG is the soundtrack to your worst nightmare, then MoRT is the soundtrack to your most warped surreal nightmare. Definitely among the more challenging, adventurous albums I own and one of the few albums that I actually find unsettling. It feels nearly formless, each track listed by number as chapters creating an abstract whole vision. Vindsval does a great job with atonality and dissonance. Time warps, shadowy figures appear through misty vistas warping time and space. 

They'll tell you black is really white

The sun is just a moon at night.

Oh, and did I mention, it's a good example of ambient, avant metal. 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was either TWtTG or MoRT when my wife said, Mark that's not even music-that's like Silence of the Lamb serial killer music.

[FatherAlabaster]

3 hours ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

I've always been on the change their name side of this debate. Not for every little style change that sounds the slightest bit different or a minor sub-genre shift like a thrash metal band going all groove metal in the 90's or something. But in this case we have a band that has spent several years writing and releasing records, touring and building their brand of progressive-tinged death metal who have now apparently put out an album of all ambient music. I'm not trying to pigeonhole them into any particular flavor of metal or rock music, they are free to do whatever they like without any limits and without asking my permission. I didn't happen to appreciate the progressive influences on their last album so I was happy to hop off the Blood Incantation train at that stop, and I wish them well. I will probably still watch their set at MDF in May, but I had no intention of checking out their new album, even if would have been another BI death metal album. I've got plenty of other music to listen to.  

Band names are brand names, and brand names are supposed to stand for something imho. Brand names exist to let consumers know what to expect when they open the box. If you're charging money for your music then it's a product like any other product and you will be seeking consumers for your product so you should stand behind it. Side projects in completely different genres than the main band or 180° changes of this magnitude should be released under a different name. Because what's the upside in pissing off a good portion of your fans and consumers?

There is much precedent for this, Drudkh comes to mind, a long standing black metal band from Ukraine. They have released 11 full length black metal albums under the Drudkh name but when they released their two straight death metal albums they did it under the Rattenfänger banner. I'm sure there are other good examples I just can't think of any off the top of my head. This is simply the right thing to do as far as I see it.

It's really just like any other company that puts a different name on their different types of products. Vaseline (petroleum jelly) Hellmann's (mayonaise) and Ben & Jerry's (ice cream) are all made by the same company but they put different brand names on the jars for a reason.

Unless you're a band whose brand is to be weird, experimental, off-kilter and avant-garde in which case your fans should already know to expect the unexpected. Or if you're purposely trying to play a little joke on your fans and confuse them then by all means make every album a completely different genre. Even as many people as that will piss off I'm sure there are still lots more people out there who would actually dig that approach.

But this branding issue should in no way discourage any musicians from exploring whatever sounds in whatever directions they want. I don't understand that facet of your argument. Side projects, one-offs and solo albums can be really cool, I'm all for them. It can be fun to see musicians you've only known for doing one thing now doing something completely different. Just do it under a different name, what's the big deal? How is this unpractical? Anyone creative enough to write and perform music oughta be able to come up with lots of names to slap on their different projects.

There are bands that evolve naturally and slowly over time from one thing to something else, or bands that make an abrupt change from one thing to another, but it's not a one-off, the change will be permanent, like Ulver. These bands can keep their same name. They'll lose fans along the way but they'll gain new ones as well and their brand will eventually come to be known as the new thing. But like when Morbid Angel put out a one-off out of left field like Illud Divinum Insanus, something like that should have been under a different brand name. I'm not even a fan of MA myself but I couldn't help notice that all they did was royally piss off their fans. Which is their right I suppose, they can do whatever they want to oviously, but my question is why would they want to? 

Boo hoo, the poor fans. How will they cope with a band misunderstanding the power dynamic? Bands are obviously there to service consumers... what other reason would anyone ever pick up an instrument. Pfff. The idea that the act of someone paying money for something I did gives them some stake in what I do down the road, or that challenging someone's expectations could be seen as not "standing behind" my other work... man, that's fucking anathema to me.

I made some fun play-doh art with my kid that I wound up posting online. I do logo designs and t-shirts. I even did some silly cartoonish zombie illustrations for cocktail glassware. Should I put all those under pseudonyms so I don't hurt my brand? Do I risk the possibility that someone who likes my figure paintings will be so let down by my play-doh monsters that they just can't take me seriously anymore? If you believe in creative freedom and you also think people should listen to stuff before they buy it, how is it even remotely an issue what some person or group chooses to put out under whichever name they choose? Why shouldn't the band just say "yeah, that was us, this is us too" and leave it to you to expand the boundaries of your own conception of their project? And why should bands who change permanently get to keep their names while bands who experiment with something as a one-off don't? That one makes no sense to me... if anything it's the bands that completely change direction forever who might be best served by changing their name. But it isn't that simple.

As a practical matter, coming up with new band name that 1) fits and 2) everyone can agree on is hard. And then, hundreds or thousands of good ones are already taken; there are potential legal issues with whatever contract a band as a legal entity might have with their label, and conflicts if they happen to pick something that belongs to someone else; and giving up (or asking a label to give up) whatever value there might be in your name recognition and basically build a whole new band/"brand" from scratch is a tough proposition. Examples don't really offer much... there are examples of bands pointlessly changing names while playing basically the same stuff, bands keeping their names while changing their entire sound, the same people releasing similar things under different names for personal reasons, for legal reasons... meh. 

On a personal level, I'd rather hear a group develop and change and go along for the ride with them then ever get the sense that they were treading water in the service of some "brand". Most of my absolute favorites have changed course significantly in their careers. And as a musician, man, fuck anyone who comes along with some version of "the customer is always right" or "play monkey play". 

Not lashing out at you personally with any of the above, just having a conversation here.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

6 minutes ago, markm said:

NP: Blood Incantation/Timewave Zero-I'm on the second track and I like it. It's ambient music. Yeah, that's what it is. BFD. If you've spent much time listening to atmospheric heavy music and certainly atmospheric and experimental black, you've heard ambient music. So this is just an entire album of ambient. Okaaaaaay. aaaaand......????

MoRT reminds me of all the great albums buried in my library I need to back and listen to more often. If TWtTG is the soundtrack to your worst nightmare, then MoRT is the soundtrack to your most warped surreal nightmare. Definitely among the more challenging, adventurous albums I own and one of the few albums that I actually find unsettling. It feels nearly formless, each track listed by number as chapters creating an abstract whole vision. Vindsval does a great job with atonality and dissonance. Time warps, shadowy figures appear through misty vistas warping time and space. 

 

Aaaaaand.....most metalheads don't want and have trouble getting through an entire album of ambient, drone or noise. I have some atmospheric black metal that's got some fairly lengthy ambient sections that I very much enjoy, in contrast to the black metal. But an entire album of just those ambient sections out of context would be absolutely pointless to me. Too much of a good thing as they say. It'd be like listening to an entire album of nothing but intros. I have trouble getting through intros that are longer than about 45 seconds without skipping them as it is. But to each his own. I've known people who really dig ambient artists like Brian Eno and Tangerine Dream and such. Personally I'd rather listen to Deafheaven, and you know how I feel about them. Takes all kinds. 

I have a bunch of Blut Aus Nord albums, all but two of the full lengths I think. They're one of the very few bands who use dissonance/atonality in ways that I can make sense of. But MoRT is one I passed on because I knew I'd never want to listen to it ever again. Just dialed it up to refresh my memory. Don't find it adventurous or ominous or unsettling, just painfully boring.

 

 

NP: Deströyer 666 - Defiance 2009, my favorite of their 5 full lengths which is quite the unpopular opinion.

 

Before that: Bloodthirst - Chalice of Contempt - 2014

 

[Dead1]

I listened to one track from new Blood Incantqtion and it was boring as bat shit.

 

Hopefully a one off before they go back to Death Metal.

[Serpentboi1992]

[MarkhantonioYeatts]

CIRCLE JERKS - Live At The Fillmore

DA GOINS - 100% Groin

 

MURDER - Apocalypse Rock

 

[RelentlessOblivion]

Shape of Despair - Return to the Void

Hmm it’s still them but I’m not quite feeling this, maybe just not in the right mood

[GoatmasterGeneral]

34 minutes ago, FatherAlabaster said:

Boo hoo, the poor fans. How will they cope with a band misunderstanding the power dynamic? Bands are obviously there to service consumers... what other reason would anyone ever pick up an instrument. Pfff. The idea that the act of someone paying money for something I did gives them some stake in what I do down the road, or that challenging someone's expectations could be seen as not "standing behind" my other work... man, that's fucking anathema to me.

I made some fun play-doh art with my kid that I wound up posting online. I do logo designs and t-shirts. I even did some silly cartoonish zombie illustrations for cocktail glassware. Should I put all those under pseudonyms so I don't hurt my brand? Do I risk the possibility that someone who likes my figure paintings will be so let down by my play-doh monsters that they just can't take me seriously anymore? If you believe in creative freedom and you also think people should listen to stuff before they buy it, how is it even remotely an issue what some person or group chooses to put out under whichever name they choose? Why shouldn't the band just say "yeah, that was us, this is us too" and leave it to you to expand the boundaries of your own conception of their project? And why should bands who change permanently get to keep their names while bands who experiment with something as a one-off don't? That one makes no sense to me... if anything it's the bands that completely change direction forever who might be best served by changing their name. But it isn't that simple.

As a practical matter, coming up with new band name that 1) fits and 2) everyone can agree on is hard. And then, hundreds or thousands of good ones are already taken; there are potential legal issues with whatever contract a band as a legal entity might have with their label, and conflicts if they happen to pick something that belongs to someone else; and giving up (or asking a label to give up) whatever value there might be in your name recognition and basically build a whole new band/"brand" from scratch is a tough proposition. Examples don't really offer much... there are examples of bands pointlessly changing names while playing basically the same stuff, bands keeping their names while changing their entire sound, the same people releasing similar things under different names for personal reasons, for legal reasons... meh. 

On a personal level, I'd rather hear a group develop and change and go along for the ride with them then ever get the sense that they were treading water in the service of some "brand". Most of my absolute favorites have changed course significantly in their careers. And as a musician, man, fuck anyone who comes along with some version of "the customer is always right" or "play monkey play". 

Not lashing out at you personally with any of the above, just having a conversation here.

No worries mate, I did not for a second think that you were lashing out at me personally. And a good thought provoking conversation it is too if I might add.

You raise a lot of good points sir, and there is much to unpack and consider here...what struck me first though was when you said "asking a label to give up whatever value there might be in your name recognition" and that I think cuts right to the heart of the issue. I suspect there may have been many times when artists who might otherwise have been inclined to release something "different" as a side project under a different name or even just call it a solo album under their real names are denied these options by their labels. The labels obviously want to ride that name recognition horse as far and as long as they possibly can because all they care about is sales, and they worry fans will be too stupid to realize who the artists behind these kinds of one-off releases actually are.

So essentially it sounds to me like we're saying that it's totally acceptable for artists to acquiesce and let the labels and lawyers dictate these kinds of artistic/business decisions, but we're not about to be taking any shit from the fans who despite being the ones paying the bills should nevertheless keep their mouths shut, know their places in this delicate power dynamic and at the end of the day should honestly just be glad they are being given the opportunity and the privilege to buy any new albums at all.

Before I say any more I just want to say that I do get that as someone who is just a fan and is not also in a band creating music it would make sense that I'd have a very different perspective on all of this than working musicians who are in the business of creating, marketing and selling their music while also being music fans and consumers themselves. But yes, I absolutely do believe in total artistic/creative freedom without compromise. I wouldn't want to pigeonhole or limit any artist creatively in any way. But unless I'm mistaken that's not what we're talking about here, I believe we're talking more about marketing and the business end of things.

Because again, I really wasn't suggesting that bands be forced to change their names against their wills every time they change styles, unless they want to of course as is their right. But more specifically I'm talking about bands that release one-off or two-off side project ventures in totally different genres of music while still keeping the main band (and brand) active and continuing to do what they've always done. Bands that evolve and change and grow naturally and organically over time as is totally normal and expected should absolutely keep their names and let their fans decide if they want to accept and get used to their new directions or maybe stop listening as they see fit. "That was us, this is us too" as you put it. Fair enough. But if no-neck Corpsegrinder wants to release an album of traditional Christmas Carols using his bandmate cronies as his backup band, I think it'd be silly to consider that the latest Cannibal Corspe album, and somewhat disingenuous to market it as such if it's merely an attempt to cash in on name recognition.

But bands/artists are of course totally free to do whatever they want, this is all just my unsolicited two cents. You (and they) can take it for whatever it might be worth to you. Or not, as the case may be. I'm just tawkin' here.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

OFF! - Wasted Years

 

 

OFF! - Hypnotized/Legion of Evil/Over Our Heads (Live at Amoeba) I was actually listening to the Wasted Years album but it's not up on Youtube, only as separate vids. I did find this live one though which is pretty cool.

 

[AlSymerz]

Speedboozer S/T

[Stormblaast]

Lamb Of God - Redneck

Wish this was my birthday party as a kid 🤣